We cannot think of a better way to kick of Lung Cancer Awareness Month 2016 than with this excellent Q&A with a leader in the movement - and our friend - Bonnie Addario.  Please read this inspirational and informative interview from Genentech:  https://www.gene.com/stories/qa-bonnie-j-addario

The following was originally published at DukeHealth.org by Dr. Thomas A. D’Amico on June 21st, 2011.  Thomas A. D’Amico, MD, is a professor of surgery and director of the Duke Cancer Institute’s lung cancer program. He was elected chair of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network board of directors in 2010.

As a thoracic surgeon, I operate on lung cancer patients every day. We discuss life-and-death issues regarding their surgeries, but we don’t usually talk about how they feel about their disease.

At a recent lung cancer advocacy event, I had the opportunity to hear one of my patients tell her story. A former Division I soccer player for East Carolina University, 24-year-old Taylor Bell was diagnosed with lung cancer two weeks after her 21st birthday. She puts a very different face on lung cancer than most people expect.

She’s very grateful for her survival, but she says that, even when she’s talking to survivors of other types of cancer -- to anyone, really -- when she tells people she has had lung cancer, inevitably everyone asks the same thing: “Did you smoke?”

Her point of view is, “Why is that the most important thing you want to know about me?” It’s offensive to her because, number one, she didn’t smoke, and number two, what if she did? Would that mean that she deserved the disease?

Assigning Blame for Lung Cancer

That is the underlying assumption when many people think about lung cancer: In an international survey commissioned in 2010 by the Global Lung Cancer Coalition, 22 percent of U.S. respondents admitted they feel less sympathy for lung cancer patients than for patients with other types of cancer, because of the link to smoking.

The reality is that 15 to 20 percent of folks who get lung cancer have no personal firsthand experience with tobacco. Some, like Taylor Bell, are complete non-smokers. Some have been exposed to secondhand smoke, which certainly is not their fault.

If you counted just deaths from lung cancer among nonsmokers, lung cancer would still be the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States.

But no one should be blamed for getting cancer, regardless of their smoking history. Most smokers first start the habit as teenagers, and by adulthood it becomes entrenched; nicotine addiction is among the hardest to overcome.

The real issue is not the smoker who develops cancer; it’s how we as a society assign blame for disease. If we are to measure our sympathies for the ill by the behaviors that may have contributed to their illness, what about the patients with debilitating heart disease who have led high-stress, low-exercise lifestyles, or people with type 2 diabetes who had poor eating habits?

What about the smokers who didn’t develop lung cancer but developed breast cancer, heart disease, or stroke?

Would you have more sympathy for a smoker with lung cancer if you knew he had grown up with little education about the dangers of smoking?

What about if the individual had a strong genetic predisposition to nicotine addiction?

Stigma Slows Progress in Fight Against Lung Cancer

The truth is, it’s rare that we can draw a straight line from a person’s disease to their lifestyle choices, and applying moral judgments to the ill is not only a waste of energy, but also a slippery moral slope.

I believe the public-health campaign against smoking and tobacco use has had unintended consequences: not only stigma for the victims of diseases associated with smoking, but actually slowing our progress in the fight against those diseases. And that is something we need to pay attention to.

The fact is that lung cancer is the most important cancer disease in our country, and indeed among all developed countries, in terms of its impact. In 2010, lung cancer caused 157,300 deaths in the United States, more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined, according to estimates from the American Cancer Society.

In 2006, the most recent year for which we have estimates, we spent $10.3 billion in care for lung cancer patients, and the estimated loss of economic productivity due to lung cancer is $36.1 billion -- far higher than the next-highest figure (which is breast cancer, at a $12.1-billion loss).

The burden of this disease to us as a society should be, in itself, enough to compel us to do everything we can to improve diagnosis and treatment. Yet lung cancer receives much less research funding than other types of cancer that cause fewer deaths.

The stigma associated with lung cancer definitely takes its toll on survivors personally, and it’s possible that it also affects research funding for the disease. Using the most recent available data on National Cancer Institute research funding, lung cancer received only $1,875 per death, compared to $17,028 per breast cancer death, $10,638 per prostate cancer death, and $6,008 per colorectal cancer death.

It’s impossible to read the minds of people who make decisions regarding funding for lung cancer research, but I think funding disparities can be attributed partly to a combination of the smoking stigma and ageism. If a 73-year-old person has a life-threatening disease, that’s not perceived as being as important to society as a disease that affects younger people. And an older patient population also means less patient advocacy.

The fight against breast cancer, for example, has been promoted successfully because many young women who are survivors have their life to give to raising awareness. The cure rate for lung cancer is much lower than for breast cancer. So there are fewer advocates.

Need for New Screening Methods and Biologic Therapies

There is a need for greater research funding to advance two priorities that could make a significant difference for patients with lung cancer -- perfection of screening methods to catch more cases in the early stages, and stepped-up evaluation of biologic therapies, which can be equally as effective or more effective than chemotherapy without the overall toxicity.

Improved screening is an urgent need. Today, only about 20 percent of lung-cancer cases are caught at stage one. If we could increase that to 40 percent, we would improve survival dramatically.

Spiral computed tomography (CT) scan screening is a promising technique that’s being tested for patients known to be at high risk, but as a widespread tool, even CT has a drawback: the high chance of false positives.

Your CT scan might show a little nodule, but that does not necessarily mean you have lung cancer, and follow-up testing for lung cancer is invasive: if you have a positive screening for a mammography, you get a needle biopsy, but a positive screen from a CT scan might lead to a surgery.

We would like to be able to determine your true cancer status without having to do additional CT screens on you for the next five years or subjecting you to an unnecessary lung biopsy.

A line of research that holds much promise is perfecting a method for combining CT scans with a serum or urine test that detects a protein or other biomarker.

Even if we improve diagnosis, we’ll always have people who present with advanced disease, and the cure rate for those people is, frankly, dismal. One way to improve that rate is with better targeting of biologic therapies.

Industry is producing these agents faster than we can test them. We need to put more effort into testing and enhancing these agents -- which could improve treatment for others cancers as well. For instance, Avastin (bevacizumab) is now known to be successful against lung cancer, but it wasn’t originally conceived as a lung cancer agent.

To carry out these research priorities, we must erase the stigma that accompanies lung cancer and give the disease the full research support that its sufferers and their families deserve.

In the meantime, we will count on survivors such as Taylor Bell, who handles the smoking question with grace. After she tells people that no, she never smoked, the second question usually is: “Well, how did you get it?” Her response: “Why does anyone get cancer?”

The following was originally published at dailylocal.com on Monday, March 11th, 2013 by Dr. Alicia McKelvey.  Dr. McKelvey is a thoracic surgeon on staff at Paoli Hospital in Chester County, PA.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In fact, more people die of lung cancer than of colon, breast and prostate cancers combined.

Screening for colon, breast and prostate cancer have played a significant role in reducing the number of deaths due to these diseases. Until recently, however, no screening test for lung cancer has proven effective in detecting the disease at an early, more treatable stage.

In August 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, released findings from the first scientific study of an effective screening technique using advanced imaging technology called the low dose helical CT scan (LDHCT) that significantly reduces death due to lung cancer in high risk individuals.

This study demonstrated 20 percent fewer lung cancer deaths in those who underwent screening with LDHCT as compared with those who were screened with standard chest x-rays. High risk individuals are those who are 55 to 74 years old and who have a 30 or more pack year smoking history and former smokers who quit within the last 15 years. Pack years is a term used to categorize smoking history and is calculated by the number of packs smoked each day times the years of smoking.

Screening with the low-dose CT scan enabled the detection of lung cancer at its earliest stage when there are typically no symptoms to indicate a problem. Early stage lung cancer means the disease has not spread to other organs or to lymph nodes.

Knowing the stage along with other factors, including the type of cancer and the patient’s overall health, helps doctors to recommend the best treatment. Treatment options for lung cancer include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy or any combination of these therapies. The typical course for early stage lung cancer is surgery to remove the diseased tissue.

If concerned about lung cancer, contact a physician to discuss ways to reduce the risk and whether screening with a LDHCT is beneficial.

Leading magazine downplays value of lung cancer screenings, to the detriment of advances in early detection research.

SAN CARLOS, Calif., March 20, 2013 /PRNewswire
-- 
The following statement was issued by Bonnie J. Addario regarding the March cover article in Consumer Reports: The cancer tests you need--and those you don't:

"I am appalled by the March 2013 Consumer Reports cover story (The cancer tests you need--and those you don't), because of the misleading and misguided message it sends to people who really need life-saving cancer screening tests, and how it discredits the value and importance of proper early detention cancer screening tests.

"The article's irresponsible reporting is best summed up in this statement on page 31: 'But most people shouldn't waste their time on screenings for bladder, lung, oral, ovarian, prostate, pancreatic, skin or testicular cancers.'

"Consumer Reports is one of the most trusted publications in America. Anyone, whether they know they are low or high risk, will read that statement and walk away believing early detection cancer screening tests are unnecessary. The six-page article mentions only twice that its ratings apply only to asymptomatic, low-risk population.

"Shame on Consumer Reports. We are talking about people's lives here.

"I myself am a lung cancer survivor. For more than a year I was misdiagnosed and not given an early detection screening test, even though I was in a high-risk category. When I was finally diagnosed I was stage 3B. Unlike so many others, I beat the odds. But my odds would have been better with an early detection cancer screening test. I founded the Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation seven years ago to advocate and raise money for better research, education, early detection and treatment. Because something must be done.

The stats are staggering.

• Lung cancer kills more people than the next five biggest cancers combined.
  
• Eighty percent of new lung cancer cases are former smokers or never smokers.
  
• Yet the five-year survival rate has been unchanged for more than 40 years. Only 15 percent of diagnosed patients live longer than five years.
  
• More funding and better research will lead to more effective early detection screening, which will save and prolong lives.
  

"Cancer screening and treatment are certainly at a crossroads, as the article states. This is made clear as well by recent legislation to direct more tobacco settlement money to early lung cancer detection programs. But the article's irresponsible representation of the value of screening tests, I fear, might damage the progress my lung cancer foundation has made over the past seven years - just as we are making great strides.

"People cannot readily see symptoms of lung cancer. Symptoms are deep in the lungs, unlike breast cancer, where lumps can be felt and are visible. When you are diagnosed with lung cancer it is often at stage four, when it's too late.

"The Consumer Reports article makes only one responsible and thoughtful statement: 'Weighing the risks and benefits of cancer screening is best done in the context of a patient-doctor relationship.'

"Consumer Reports should stay out of the health care advice business, and stick to writing about toasters and washing machines. I wouldn't approach my doctor about whether I should buy a Honda or a Ford. And likewise, people should not consult Consumer Reports to help them decide whether or not to have a potentially life-saving cancer screening test."

About the Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation 

The Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation is one of the largest philanthropies (patient-founded, patient-focused, and patient-driven) devoted exclusively to eradicating Lung Cancer through research, early detection, education, and treatment. The Foundation works with a diverse group of physicians, organizations, industry partners, individuals, survivors, and their families to identify solutions and make timely and meaningful change. BJALCF was established on March 6, 2006 as a 501c(3) non-profit organization and has raised more than $9 million for lung cancer research.

This article was originally published at About.com on January 10th, 2013 by Lynne Eldridge, MD.
-------
Studies have shown that when it comes to breast cancer, older women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stages of the disease.

Not so with lung cancer - at least in recent studies in Denmark and England. Instead, it seems the slogan reads "early age later stage."

Researchers in Denmark set out to evaluate the stage of lung cancer at which different age groups are diagnosed. Looking at people aged 65-69, those aged 70 to 74 were 18% less likely to be diagnosed with late stage disease. The trend continued on: Those aged 75 to 79 were 26% less likely, 80 to 84 were 27% less likely, and those over 85, 34% less likely to have a diagnosis of late disease. Since the stage at diagnosis makes a tremendous difference in long-term survival from lung cancer, this is something to stand up and take note of.

Why would younger people be less likely to diagnosed with lung cancer until it's reached the later stages of the disease? Or to ask the question in another way: Why does age seem to have a protective effect against late stage lung cancer diagnosis? Possibilities shared with me by Georogios Lyratzopoulous MD, one of the investigators in another study in England demonstating "early age later stage" include:

• There may be more "opportunistic" diagnosis among the older patients. This means that since older patients have more medical conditions, they are more likely to have their lung cancers "accidentally" diagnosed when a scan is done for some other reason.
  
• Young people may tolerate lung cancer symptoms more resiliently. This means that younger people may be able to "get by" or ignore lung cancer symptoms such as shortness of breath longer before they consult a doctor.
  
• My own speculation was that perhaps older people are more familiar with the symptoms that could be lung cancer by virtue of having had friends and acquaintances who have had lung cancer.
  

The conclusion based on these findings is that efforts to diagnose lung cancer early need to be tailored to different age groups. The stage of a lung cancer at the time of diagnosis can have a huge impact on younger patients with lung cancer. In the study above from Denmark, only 17% of the cancers were diagnosed at stage 1 and stage 2. To tailor the diagnostic process for different age groups, we need to focus on more diagnostic research instead of just treatment research.

Sources:

• Dalton, S. et al. Socioeconomic position, stage of lung cancer and time between referral and diagnosis in Denmark, 2001-2008. British Journal of Cancer. 2011. 105(7):1042-8.
  
• Lyratzopoulos, G. et al. Variation in advanced stage at diagnosis of lung cancer female breast cancer in an English Region 2006-2009. British Journal of Cancer. 2012. 106(6):1068-75.
  

Read it HERE.

The Joan Gaeta Lung Cancer Fund advocate Jackie Archer is traveling to Washington DC by invitation to speak with Congressmen, Senators, and others about the need for the early detection of lung cancer.  A lung cancer survivor herself, Jackie's cancer was detected early by accident - literally.  It took a head-on car crash and a trip to the emergency room for doctors to discover her tumor early enough.  Each year, nearly  160,000 lung cancer patients are not so "lucky".  Jackie will be taking the time in DC to network with anyone and everyone to help make a difference.  Thanks, Jackie!

One thing that YOU can do is to contact every Senator and Congressman from your great state and ask them to support the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act (HR 1394).

Below is a list of co-sponsors in the Senate and the House that have already agreed to support the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act.  As you can see, we need additional sponsors!